Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy

from the this-ain't-the-transparency-we-were-promised dept

Despite some sweet talk from Hollywood about how important ACTA and its secret negotiations are to America (and, once again, no, the secrecy is not at all "normal," as some industry lawyers would have you believe), it looks like some Senators are finally beginning to question how ACTA is being handled. Senators Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown have sent a letter to US Trade Rep Ron Kirk asking for ACTA documents to be made public. The letter points out that "the public has a right to monitor and express informed views on proposals of such magnitude" especially considering that "there are concerns about the impact of ACTA on the privacy and civil rights of individuals, on the supply of products under the first sale doctrine, on the markets for legitimate generic medicines, and on consumers and innovation in general." The letter also takes on the bogus claims of state secrets in protecting ACTA documents:

We are surprised and unpersuaded by assertions that disclosures of basic information about the negotiation would present a risk to the national security of the United States, particularly as regards documents that are shared with all countries in the negotiations, and with dozens of representatives of large corporations. We are concerned that the secrecy of such information reflects a desire to avoid potential criticism of substantive provisions in ACTA by the public, the group who will be most affected by the agreement. Such secrecy has already undermined public confidence in the ACTA process.... We firmly believe that the public has a right to know the contents of the proposals being considered under ACTA, just as they have the right to read the text of bills pending before Congress."

Unfortunately, these are just two Senators. Supporters of ACTA likely have many more who will blindly fight to keep ACTA secret and get it approved with little or no substantive input from those it will impact most.

Ideas for contacting your Government Represenative

I just faxed a copy of the letter (warning:PDF) with a coversheet to my Senators and Representatives. In the coversheet, I (nicely) asked that they take a look at what Senators Brown and Sanders wrote, and let me know if "this ACTA thingie is something to be worried about".

I finished it off by asking the Senator/Representative also request this same information from US Trade Representative Ron Kirk. I hope this gives you some ideas, and maybe you feel inclined to do the same.

Cynicism seems called for in this instance

Industry appears to want to railroad this through regardless of what the public wants or needs. And of course the problem is that we can't even comment sensibly about it, since they won't let us see the drafts.

Re: Re:

With rare exception, if any, my so-called "snide comments" have been directed to personal put-downs in response to comments otherwise made in good faith.

What makes you think the letter had anything to do with the EFF?!? If it were from the EFF it would have come from the EFF's usual friends.

If others feel free to to decry MPAA and RIAA involvement in preparing materials for "drone-like" presentation by members of Congress, then it only seems fair to reciprocate in kind.

Of course, there are some others who use the current ACTA negotiations to spread fear mongering. Public Knowledge is one such group, which is interesting since I believe it is one of the groups provided access. Michael Geist in Canada is another mouthing such fear mongering and "moral panic".

I have stated before, but it bears repeating, there is to my knowledge nothing in the negotiations to date that in any way would require the United States to substantively amend its current copyright law. For example, some issues were noted in a post, to which post I replied by reference to specific sections of US law wherein provisions related to such issues are already embraced within US law.

I believe it is worthwhile to note that while some persons and organizations heavily invested in the blogsphere have raise what I would call a misleading hue and cry, this is an activity that has not caused dissension within the ranks that under any reasonable interpretation can be faily characterized as a groundswell of opposition.

I have asked before, and I ask again, if anyone is able to identify issues that would require amendment of US law, then bring those issues forward for discussion. Thus far the few issues that have been raised do no such thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you able to provide any substantive comments or are you merely trying to ingratiate yourself with others here?

By the tenor of your comment I take it that you are still in school and removed from the business world. I could be wrong, in which case were I your employer I would worry about your skill level for critical analysis of what you read.